<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/4.6.0">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
This is the reply to Stevan I gave on a more limited list.<BR>
<BR>
Thank you for a clear and interesting answer, Stevan. I had long suspected that your perspective on tactical points trumped (in your view) more general issues. I am glad to see that, here, you openly admit hypotheses. There is no proof that the projected outcry would take place (OAPEN's work did not bring such an outcry) and there is even less evidence that it would "infect" the article OA efforts. In fact, the choice of words is interesting: infecting is like looking at anything that moves away from a certain (pure?) vision of OA could contaminate OA. Nothing supports a "pure" vision of OA. Nothing supports a contamination theory of "pure" OA. etc. The term "handicap", equally medical and biological in inspiration, simply pushes the same metaphor further, but it does not add anything to the argument.<BR>
<BR>
<FONT COLOR="#ff0000">Once article OA is a done deal, worldwide, it's safe to try extending it to further kinds of content. But we are still far from that; and what we have is still shaky.</FONT><BR>
<BR>
There is no question that this is true, but the "once" actually hides a "if". The problem is that, under a number of circumstances, article OA already coexists with other approaches to OA, and sometimes it is even preceded by it. In Budapest, in 2001, we all, except Stevan, started from the premise that the road to OA was through journals. Thank God for Stevan's resistance since it brought out the Green Road into full bloom, and what a potent weapon it is! But the Gold Road was first in peoples' minds, and for reasons that were not simply the result of faulty reasoning. In emerging countries, particularly Latin America, Gold projects quickly dwarfed Green undertakings, even though the situation is now being (happily) redressed with the repository consortium organized on the LA academic network. <BR>
<BR>
In short, if we dealt with an ideal situation, Stevan would be right, but such a vision requires a clean slate. History is much messier, and we have to deal with all kinds of initiatives launched by various kinds of actors that pursue agendas that are only roughly convergent. I go back to the motto of the Internet, let us be happy with rough consensus and working code. In other words, whatever works somewhere should be seen as a form of progress unless it be demonstrably clear that the progress is only apparent. Let us not decide in advance that it will "infect" or "handicap" other projets.<BR>
<BR>
<FONT COLOR="#ff0000">That said, of course when publication itself is subsidized, the subsidizer is always free to attach strings to that publication subsidy, including, if they wish, OA, and the subsidized author can then take it or leave it.</FONT><BR>
<BR>
This is certainly an interesting opening, Stevan. When I was vp of the Canadian Federations for the HSS (CFHSS) , I tried to have all Canadian subsidized books that were "out of print" republished electronically in Open Access (that covered about 5,000 monographic titles). I managed to get about six books in OA, not because of authors' objections (they were never consulted by publishers), but because of publishers' prior contracts with commercial outlets that had promised them increased revenues in exchange for partial or total transfer of rights for electronic versions (eBrary in particular has been very active here). <BR>
<BR>
The main obstacle in this process is not authors; once again we face publishers who simply will do whatever they can to derail the OA movement. This is as true of articles as it is of scholarly monographs. <BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
But that's a publication subsidy, not a research subsidy, and I thought we were talking about the strings funders could attach to their research subsidies.<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Publishing subsidies also come from funders. Sometimes they are the same (as in the case of SSHRC in Canada, even though the programme is managed by CFHSS. Sometimes, it comes from different kinds of funders. This is the case in France, for example. But funders, once we understand where they come from, are funders of some aspect of the research-and-publication process and one can start studying how to affect them best, according to their own agendas. In fact, later, in his reaction to Colin, Stevan does admit that funders can subsidize both research and publications.<BR>
<BR>
<FONT COLOR="#ff0000">I've had an intuitive guide that has never led me astray for 20 years: </FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff0000"><I>Always distinguish author give-aways (willing give-aways) from all other forms of content</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff0000">. The world's grip on OA is still far too frail to mix up the two forms of content just yet, and risk making enemies of those who should be our allies.</FONT><BR>
<BR>
I am glad about the use of the word "intuitive": the distinction you bring forth, Stevan, is valuable, but it does not coincide with royalties and actual situations on the ground. Many monographic authors would gladly exchange the loss of (paltry) revenues for symbolic capital. They need their monographs for tenure, for grants, etc., far more than they need their books for income. I will agree that there is a grey zone (the successful scholarly monograph), and I recognize your desire to draw a sharp line between the two for arguments' sake. However, in this case, your attempt to resolve a real world situation by a simple clarification of vocabulary, however valuable (and I believe you have helped us all see some things more clearly, more sharply) is proving itself insufficient. <BR>
<BR>
This said, none of these differences threaten the OA movement fundamentally. An alliance of conceptual "lumpers" and "splitters" can be quite potent. Intellectual rigour is not incompatible with pragmatism. In good spirits and with a smile on our face, let us be, as Stevan likes to say, brothers in arms.<BR>
<BR>
Jean-Claude<BR>
<BR>
Le mardi 22 janvier 2013 à 07:25 -0500, Stevan Harnad a écrit :<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
My reply below is not about the (undoubted) benefits of Open Access to books, both to the reader (always) and to the author (sometimes).
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
It is about the very practical question of what can and should be mandated (required) by authors' institutions and funders (like ARC) vs. what should only be encouraged or supported.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
The reason this matters is that OA is still being vastly under-provided by authors and under-mandated by their funders and institutions even today, when it has already been possible (and beneficial) for at least two decades.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
It has to have something to do with motivation -- and primarily authors' (i.e., researchers') motivation. What do they all want to give away free online? and what do only some of them want to give away free online?
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
If a mandate is to be successful, it better focus first on mandating what all authors want, not what some authors want and others do not. The objective is author compliance, not author resistance.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
And it seems evident that all authors, in all disciplines, want their articles to be freely accessible online to all their potential users, not just those who have subscription access, whereas it is not at all evident that all authors, in all disciplines, want their books to be freely accessible online to all their potential users, not just those who pay for it. (They consider library access to the print edition sufficient for the latter.)
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
It may well be that book authors are wrong; it may well be that many, most, or all will eventually change their minds. But requiring them to make their books OA now can only create a backlash even against compliance with the requirement to make their articles OA, which all of them at least want to do already, even if they don't -- or daren't -- do it without a mandate from their institutions and funders.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
On 2013-01-21, at 8:11 PM, Colin Steele <<A HREF="mailto:Colin.Steele@anu.edu.au">Colin.Steele@anu.edu.au</A>> wrote:
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
I checked with the ARC CEO yesterday and the ARC policy “ARC requires that any publications . . .” <B>does</B> cover books.<BR>
Open access should not be not simply confined to STM articles but rather to the publicly funded created knowledge of researchers. Academic books fall into that category.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
It's a slippery slope. Can every university author who writes a book while employed and funded be required to make the book OA? I profoundly doubt it.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
And if that was attempted now, the scholarly backlash (from scholars who, despite its simplicity and despite how long and far and wide it's already been discussed, still barely understand OA) against attempts to oblige them to make their books OA will definitely infect and handicap efforts to get support and compliance for article OA.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Once article OA is a done deal, worldwide, it's safe to try extending it to further kinds of content. But we are still far from that; and what we have is still shaky.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
I think it is a huge mistake to conflate articles and books in mandates, whether funder mandates or institutional mandates.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
That said, of course when publication itself is subsidized, the subsidizer is always free to attach strings to that publication subsidy, including, if they wish, OA; and the subsidized author can then take it or leave it.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
But that's a <I>publication</I> subsidy, not a <I>research</I> subsidy, and I thought we were talking about the strings funders (like ARC) could attach to their research subsidies.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
The focus here is meant to relate to HASS disciplines not science monographs, where they still exist. nor textbooks. In the context of subsidies, articles are also ‘subsidised’ by academic free content and peer review to publishers. In any case, where book subsidies occur, they are low compared to the totality of journal subscriptions and ‘hidden’ library processing costs.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
I'm not sure what's meant by "academic free content" here: Does it mean the books that scholars write while they are professors? But the point is that some of them might be writing books for royalties (or at least the hope of them), not as "free content" for publishers to publish. (And peer review of books -- such as it is -- is often "paid" for, if not very generously).
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
But things are getting somewhat conflated here: Funders subsidize research, and sometimes also publication costs. Researchers (and their institutions and salaries) sometimes "subsidize" journals with their free content, office space, employee time and refereeing services. And institutional libraries subscribsidize journals and buysidize library books.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
But this all has to be sorted out; the whole jumble has no implications for the question of whether scholars can or should be forced to make their books OA if they don't want to (and ARC is not paying publishing costs for authors that can't find a non-OA publisher -- in which case the OA would of course be voluntary, not mandatory).
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
I've had an intuitive guide that has never led me astray for 20 years: <I>Always distinguish author give-aways (willing give-aways) from all other forms of content</I>. The world's grip on OA is still far too frail to mix up the two forms of content just yet, and risk making enemies of those who should be OA's allies.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
Most academic print books currently only sell between 250 to 350 print copies globally, mostly to libraries, which means access to their embedded knowledge is limited. Niko Pfund, President of Oxford University Press USA, commented at the American Historical Association’s January meeting, that historians, more than any other group of scholars, remain “absolutely imprisoned in the format of the printed book,” a situation, he believed, was “borderline catastrophic ”. As an aside, the ANU E Press had almost 700,000 complete PDF downloads last year.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
All true. But whereas you can get all article authors to agree to their articles being OA, you can't get all (or even most, maybe not even many) authors to agree to their books being made OA.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
So whereas Green OA mandates for articles have already been a huge battle, in countless ways, <I>authors feeling they did not want their articles to be OA was not one of them</I>.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
(I am of course not talking about the authors who don't want it solely because they are afraid of their publishers, and their <I>publishers</I> don't want it. Backing from funder and institutional mandates help those authors do what they want to do anyway.)
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
There are examples in the past where major ARC funded HASS research could not easily find a monograph publisher because it was not deemed commercial by the then university ‘trade’ publishers and the geographic subject content had little appeal to northern hemisphere publishers.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Again, this is orthogonal to the problem: An author who can't find a paper publisher, and is happy to go with an OA publisher, is not the obstacle -- and doesn't need an ARC mandate (only maybe an ARC publishing subsidy!)
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
The UK Finch committee acknowledged that it did not have time to cover either books or research data, both important issues in terms of scholarly output.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Thank goodness, given what a right mess they made of what they did cover!
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
But if this discussion is about OA publishing <I>subsidies</I> (which is what the UK Gold OA journal publishing policy is) I rather wish Finch had just stuck to subsidies (whether for articles or books) and stayed out of mandates altogether…
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
In the UK, according to RIN, library print book purchasing expenditure has declined from 11.9% of their overall budgets in 1999 to 8.4% in 2009. It also means that many esoteric subject monographs become economically unviable, leading to the fact that publishers increasingly select titles based primarily upon the potential for sales rather than scholarly worth.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
OA books definitely have a potential niche there -- but again, nothing to do with OA mandates.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
Universities and funding agencies now need to look holistically at all scholarly communication costs. There is surely no point in institutions supporting the huge costs of academic research if there is no means of distributing and accessing monographic content effectively. Many academics spend years researching and writing a scholarly book, but then find themselves either without a publishing outlet or with relatively few sales, and commensurate low exposure for their research. Relatively few get substantial royalties.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
If so, then academics will flock to OA book publishing opportunities in droves, especially subsidized ones. (But that has nothing to do with article OA mandates…)
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Colin is right though, that this is all "wide of the ARC."
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
I'm still focussed on the basic question of <I>what ARC can and should mandate, as a condition of receiving research funding…</I>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Stevan Harnad
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
<A HREF="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</A>
<A HREF="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</A>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%">
<TR>
<TD>
--
<PRE>
<IMG SRC="file:///home/jc/Bureau/Carr%C3%A9-rouge.png" ALIGN="bottom" BORDER="0">
Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal
</PRE>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</BODY>
</HTML>